

E 650 
• W45 

Copy i 


ORATION 


DELIVERED BY 


W. CALVIN WELLS 

Commander 1st Brigade Miss. U. C. V . 


OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 


ON MAY 6th, 1914 



Member Co. “B M 22nd Miss. Regiment, C. S. A, 


PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE REUNION 


AT THE 


24TH ANNUAL REUNION OF THE 
UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS 

AT JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA ===== 













































































ORATION 

DELIVERED BY 

W, CALVIN WELLS 

/ * 

COMMANDER 1st BRIGADE MISS. U. C. V. 

OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 

ON MAY 6th, 1914 



Member Co. “B” 22nd Miss. Regiment, C. S. A. 
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE REUNION 


AT THE 

TWENTY-FOURTH ANNUAL REUNION 

OF THE 

UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS 

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. 


JONES PTG CO JACKSON, MISS 


> ' i 


j > > 







✓ 








1 / 


7 





,W4 









By Transfer 
AUG 3 1914 



S 













X 








- 




















r 

.•< >$ 

<i %) 

v < i 
' < < 


! 







4 





J. 


o 

Fellow Comrades, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Time, with its continuous march, has brought us another 
year toward the end of our journey. 

Of those who fought with us in the Confederate Army, 
so few remain, so few, to gather with us at this annual re¬ 
union. Of the men who commanded us so gallantly, and led 
us so bravely into battle, still fewer remain. The great 
leaders have all “crossed the river and rest in the shade of 
the trees. ” Lee, Jackson, the Johnstons and all the rest, 
await us in the Glory Land. In truth, few of those who 
commanded us in the great struggle live to tell the tale. We 
who gather here on this occasion, were the beardless boys 
who fought in the ranks and we approach the final drama. 

To us, these leaders were the embodiment of all that 
was good and glorious. Albert Sydney Johnston, at the 
time of his death the recognized leader of all our great 
generals, fell early in the conflict. How well I recall that 
fateful April day. How proudly I, a beardless boy of seven¬ 
teen, followed in his wake in the great charge which 
crowned the day with complete victory. 

Jackson too, fell while the conflict raged, and oh! what 
a fall was that, my countrymen. But many remained with 
us after the conflict was hushed, to bless us with their 
presence and to cheer us on in evil days to peace and plenty 
again. 

As we look back now, a half century since our cause was 
in its glory, we can contemplate it with the light of the fol¬ 
lowing years and wonder what it all meant, but little in¬ 
fluenced by the stormy passions and prejudices of that 
stormy period. 

It gives me great pleasure to stand before this great 
audience of the remnant of the Old Guard and the splendid 
women and men who are their descendants, to speak to you 
of the cause of that awful conflict. So many busy years of 
life rid us of prejudices engendered by that strife and we 


- 5 — 


feel that we can now look on it all in the light of history. 

I now wish to impress on my audience that the questions 
to be discussed are not living ones to call forth our efforts 
toward their solution, but that they had their birth a half 
century and more, ago, and are forever settled and live now 
only to be discussed in bringing out the truths with refer¬ 
ence thereto to be recorded in history. 

What was it then, that caused a military strife resulting 
in the loss of nearly a million precious lives? Volumes have 
been written and great orations have been delivered in an¬ 
swer to that question. On the one side it has been claimed 
that it was waged by the North to save the United States 
Government, in other words, to save the Union. And on the 
other side it has been declared that it was for the purpose 
of establishing the Confederate Government. 

Lincoln and his associates declared that it was to save 
the Union, and Davis and his colleagues declared it was to 
vindicate the right of local self government and establish the 
Confederacy. 

Both of these claimants had a modicum of truth in their 
contentions; but to obtain the real cause we must go back 
and ascertain what made the North want to wage such a 
war to save the Union and for what reason did the South 
want to establish another government where local self gov- 
mentin its fullest sense could be enjoyed. 

These are questions to be answered in the light of the 
history of this country prior to the war. Volumes have 
been written by advocates on both sides to show that their 
contention was right, and yet, to my mind the really true 
basic reason has never been given by these great leaders and 
historians who have in turn agreed with them. 

The true cause of the war was Slavery. There was 
practically no other contention between the North and the 
South but slavery. The North contended that slavery was 
wrong and should be obliterated, and the South contended 
that it was right and should be perpetuated. 

To help them in the contention, the South appealed to 


- 6 — 


the right of self government and the legality of secession, 
and the North called to its aid the idea of the perpetuation 
of the Union. The South would have had no use for seces¬ 
sion, except to establish a government to perpetuate slavery, 
and the North would not have cared for the preservation of 
the Union, except to destroy slavery. Had it not been for 
the desire to destroy slavery, the North would not have had 
such a desire to maintain the Union of the states, and but 
for the perpetuation of slavery, there would not have been 
any desire on the part of the South to have a separate 
government. 

The contention between the North and the South on the 
subject of slavery began almost with the establishment of 
the United States Government. Prior to that time practi¬ 
cally all of the states sanctioned slavery, and there would 
never have been any confederation or association or union of 
the states had it not been that at that time it was agreed that 
slavery should exist in certain of the states. All of the 
states which were called the Southern States insisted on 
slavery and they would have refused to enter the Union had 
it not been perfectly understood that slavery would continue 
to exist as part of the law of the land. Let it be remem¬ 
bered, that when the independence of the Colonies was 
recognized by the British Government there was no connec¬ 
tion between the various state governments; but each stood 
as a separate government—a distint sovereignty. At that 
time some of the states did not have slave labor, but it was 
not because it was thought to be wrong, but because it was 
not profitable. It was then that citizens of various states 
began to send their negroes to the states where slave labor 
was profitable and sell them to citizens there. 

Let it be well understood that I propose to deal with 
the cause of the conflict as an historical one and not as a 
living one. The one point I shall insist upon and discuss is, 
that slavery was the one cause of the war between the 
states. Back of every question that arose on the political 
horizon loomed the question of slavery and controling it was 


— 7 — 


the cry of the North for the preservation of the Union. 
And back of the question of secession and the right of self 
government which it was to sustain, was the same issue of 
slavery. 

The history of the United States from its establishment, 
that is, from the adoption of the Constitution was a fight be¬ 
tween slavery and emancipation. Indeed, in the controver¬ 
sies which arose between the states about the provisions of 
the Constitution the question of slavery was an important 
one and no man will now stultify himself by denying the 
fact that the Constitution would never have been adopted 
had it not recognized slavery and the means of perpetuating 
it. While the abolitionists were few at that time and did 
not show their agressiveness until years afterwards, still, 
there were those who believed that slavery was wrong. 
But the great fight began years after this, when the admis¬ 
sion of new states to the Union took place whether they 
were to be slave or free. Each side was jealous of the 
other. The North was eager and anxious to have more free 
states, and the South equally anxious to have more slave 
states. 

The plan of the abolitionists was to defeat the admission 
of any more slave states and the desire of the slave states 
was to have more slave states admitted. 

Another contention between them was over the fugitive 
slave law. Before the Constitution received the sanction of 
the different states it was provided that a slave owner could 
enter a free state and arrest and bring back into his own 
state his run-away slave. And it was farther understood 
that a territory which should apply for admission into the 
Union might, by its own votes, determine whether it should 
be slave or free. 

There arose also, further trouble over the status of the 
territories. The Southern states held that as slaves were 
property, slave owners should be and were allowed to go 
into a territory before its admission and hold, own and 
possess their slaves in the same manner as any other 

— 8 - 


t 


property. These questions gave rise to more bitter feelings 
between the states than all other contentions combined. 
The three great questions were, First, should slavery exist 
at all? Second, should it be extended to other territory? 
Third, should the fugitive slave law be enforced in all the 
states as the Constitution provided. 

These were the burning questions arising in the history 
of our government, especially from 1820 to 1860 and formed 
the basis of nearly all the divisions of the political parties. 
It is true, there were other great questions, among them 
that of tariff for revenue only; but the slavery questions 
were the ones that dominated all others. 

in 1820 and 1821 the question of the admission of 
Missouri as a state and whether it should be free or 
slave, illustrates my contention. The South insisted on 
itsbeing admitted as a slave state and the North demanded 
that it should be free. At this late day the minds of 
men are or ought to be free to decide correctly every his¬ 
torical question which can come up about slavery. It 
seems to me that there can be no doubt of the equal rights 
of the South with the North on the slavery question. 
Both had fought for the independence of the states and 
after it had been acquired there is no reason for the 
one or the other to have had superior rights on any 
question that arose between them. Indeed, there ought not 
to have been any clash on this question. But the North, 
with its growing antipathy to slavery, demanded that the 
State of Missouri should be a free state. After the contest 
had waged in congress for about two years, Mr. Clay came 
forward with his compromise measure, which was supported 
by all the members of congress from the South. That com¬ 
promise gave to the South Missouri, but yielded up to the 
anti-slavery party the right to the introduction of slaves 
into any part of the vast territory which had come to the 
United States as a part of Louisiana, which lay north of the 
parallel of 36° 30'. This was a great concession for, as a 
matter of right to the South as to the North, each state, as 


- 9 - 


it came into the Union, had a right to decide for itself 
whether slavery should exist in it or not. 

This sacrifice of its right to territory was made by the 
South through the influence of Mr. Clay, with the expecta¬ 
tion that the slavery question was forever settled and should 
no more be a matter of contention between the sections, and 
it did settle it for a period of time. 

Again, the matter came up indirectly in 1833, when 
Calhoun presented and urged the doctrine of nullification of 
the tariff laws. South Carolina, under the leadership of Mr. 
Calhoun, seceded by an act of its State Convention called for 
the purpose, because, as it was said, of the unjust tariff 
laws. It was thought then by many that the tariff laws 
were not the cause of the movement, but that slavery was 
the real cause. Mr. Clay, with his propensity to compromise, 
used his influence and the tariff was reduced in such a man¬ 
ner as to satisfy the secession movers of South Carolina. 

The question of the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia, was one that gave trouble as it cropped out 
now and then during the years as they passed, prior to the 
civil war. The Quakers looked at'it from a religious stand¬ 
point, while the people of the District looked at it from a 
financial and political view point. Petitions were presented 
to Congress again and again for its abolition and always had 
the effect of arousing and intensifying the antagonisms of 
two sections, but Congress refused to do so until the admin¬ 
istration of Mr. Lincoln during the war. 

During the time this was going on, incendiary publica¬ 
tions were printed in the North and sent through the mails 
and otherwise, all through the South by the abolitionists. 
As a consequence, a bill was introduced in 1835 by Mr. 
Calhoun to prevent such literature being sent through the 
maiis, which was opposed by the two other intellectual 
giants of the day, Clay and Webster, and received a tie vote 
in the Senate, when the vice president, Van Buren cast the 
decisive vote against it. Clay and Webster opposed it on the 
ground of the incomptency of the bill to fulfill its purpose. 


— 10 — 


But the controversy which ensued was bitter in the extreme 
and aroused the sectional factions and thus furthered the 
wishes of the abolitionists. 

When the question of the admission of Texas as a state, 
to the Union was presented, the fight which was made 
against it was on slavery lines. It was contended on the 
part of the North that it would strengthen the slavery 
states, would give them such an amount of territory that it 
would reduce the comparative strength of the free states to 
the slave states, and a threat was made on the part of the 
abolitionists that they would secede if Texas was thus ad¬ 
mitted into the Union as a slave state. 

In like manner when Louisiana and all of its territory 
was admitted, the same contention was made. 

Thus, the slavery question was one which arose when¬ 
ever the strength of the one side or the other was to be af¬ 
fected by any action of Congress. It was the question 
above all others which decided men’s political convictions. 

The feeling on both sides was augmented by every 
action connected therewith in Congress and the North 
weighed every question and decided it with reference to 
how it would affect slavery, and likewise, the men of the 
South did the same thing. 

All of the compromise measures which were made or 
which were proposed, came from the South. They yielded 
territory that had been acquired by the joint efforts of all 
the states. Yea, for the sake of keeping down trouble, they 
gave to the government their own territory, yielding up 
their rights to have the states carved Out of such territory to 
be slave states. This was true of the territory that came 
through and as a part of Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, and 
Texas. 

In these controversies were raised the voices of the great 
men of this nation, Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Preston, and 
others to whom the country listened with great admiration. 

There was no conflict between the North and the South 
of any consequence, except on the subject of slavery. 


—11 


Mr. Lincoln, in his inaugaral address used these words: “One 
section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to 
be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought 
not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.” 
And, in the light of all previous history, Mr. Lincoln said 
what was true. 

Again, he said that he had no purpose, directly or indi¬ 
rectly, to interfere with slavery in the states where it 
existed, believed he had no lawful right to do so, and had no 
inclination to do so. This last expression, that he had no 
inclination to do so, was disbelieved by the South, and con¬ 
temporaneous events and the history of the party which 
elected him, show that he was insincere in that declaration. 
Besides this, the biographer of Henry Ward Beecher (who 
was his wife) says that Lincoln and Beecher had a distinct 
understanding before he was inaugurated, that as soon as 
public sentiment would sustain him, he would emancipate 
the negroes, and further, that Beecher frequently visited 
him after his inauguration and urged him to make his eman¬ 
cipation proclamation. 

The day after his inauguration Lincoln wrote a private 
letter to Seward and said “let the wayward sisters go in 
peace/' and about that time or before, Horace Greely in the 
New York Tribune used the same language. Salmon P. 
Chase thought that dissolution was better than war. 

I know that Mr. Lincoln is regarded by his people as 
a great and good man, and I agree that he was a great man, 
because nobody but a great man could have mobilized an 
army of two and a half millions of men and over-powered 
the South. And his admirers insist that his taking away at 
the time, was a great loss to us. What might have been is 
a matter of speculation. One thing we can confidently say 
—that is, if he had listened to his own inclination which 
prompted the letter written Seward the day after he was in¬ 
augurated and “let the wayward sisters go in peace’’ we 
would have had no war, the blood of a million of his own 
race would have been saved and untold suffering of his own 


— 12 — 


countrymen would have been avoided. He has been heralded 
by his own people as a martyr, when at the time he was 
killed there was no sacrifice to be made and he made none, 
for at the time, the war was practically ended. While sor¬ 
row was in every home North and South and it was a time 
of great mourning, he was found and his life was taken in a 
play-house. I shall never forget when I heard of the death 
of Mr. Lincoln. In my own home sorrow had come by the 
death of two of its inmates, the home had been desolated 
and laid waste, and those I loved had been driven by the in¬ 
vader from home. Darkness and gloom hung like a pall 
over those I loved. Prosperity was all gone and poverty 
was our lot, and that too, could have been avoided by this 
man. I frankly confess that there was a thrill of joy 
through my frame when I learned that he was gone. What 
bitterness and hate I have ever had, which was engendered 
by these things, has all gone, but the interest of history de¬ 
mands that the truth be told. 

During the year 1860 and for many years before, there 
were two classes of Republicans. One, the extreme aboli¬ 
tionists, who thought every slave-holder a devil incarnate 
and was called a black republican, and the other, who did not 
believe slavery was right, but was fair enough to say that a 
slave-holder might be a good man. In the light of history, 
Mr. Lincoln belonged to the Black Republican class, and his 
cabinet, especially Seward and Chase, belonged to the same 
class. Certainly, Mr. Lincoln never showed any disposition 
to meet his opponents on any other basis than that he was 
certainly right and the South certainly wrong. 

I propose now to discuss what was believed to be right 
on the subject of slavery by the North, and what it en¬ 
deavored to maintain by the sword, and then I will endeavor 
to show what the South believed and contended for. But 
before doing so, I desire to make some remarks on what is 
right and what is wrong. Law is defined by Sir William 
Blackstone as “A rule of action prescribed by the Supreme 
power, commanding what is right and forbidding what is 


13 — 


wrong. ” It will thus be seen that there are two measures 
of right and wrong, to-wit, that which is made by the civil 
law and that which is prescribed by the law of God. The 
South claimed that both of these measures gave them the 
right to hold slaves. They claimed that the law of the land 
as written in the Constitution of the United States and as 
written in the laws passed by Congress and decided by the 
Supreme Court of the United States made slavery of the 
negro lawful. 

Slavery began in the Colonies before the Revoluntionary 
War—was recognized by the British government, continued 
to have its existence after the Declaration of Independence, 
continued after the the independence of the Colonies was de¬ 
clared and was in existence at the time of the making of the 
Constitution and was ratified by all the states when the 
United States Government was formed and was not seriously 
questioned for fifty years thereafter. The slaves were 
captured or bought by New or Old England slavers and 
brought to this country and sold to the ancestors of those 
who held them in 1860. Slavery, as before stated, was 
recognized by the Constitution and provision was made there¬ 
in to protect it. Its validity was distinctly recognized by 
the Constitution in at least three places. 

First. In the second section of the first Article, which 
prescribes how the direct taxes shall be apportioned. 

Second. By the ninth section of the first Article, which 
provided a limit for the time within which the slave trade, 
could be carried on. 

Third. The second section of the fourth Article, which 
provided for the taking and returning fugitive slaves in the 
following words, to-wit: “No person held to service or labor 
in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis¬ 
charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered 
up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may 
be due.” These provisions of the Constitution were made in 
order that a slave owner could take his slave through a free 


14 — 


state without his slave becoming', free. And also, for the 
purpose of arresting and'returning to the owner a slave who 
ran away and was found in a free state. These three pro¬ 
visions were placed in the Constitution on the demand of the 
slave states, and they refused to go into the compact and 
form the United States Government until it was agreed that 
these provisions should go into the Constitution for the pro¬ 
tection of the slaveholders, and it is absolutely true that the 
Union would not have been formed but for the agreement 
to the provisions which would protect slavery. 

Under these provisions of the Constitution there was no 
law passed to enforce or limit their application for two 
years. All of the states recognized their full force until 
1850, when the agitation of the question of emancipation be¬ 
gan to assume proportions which alarmed the slave holders. 
Congress passed a law in 1850 which, if executed, would 
carry out the constitutional provision as to the fugitive slaves, 
and these laws were nullified by the Northern States and 
every impediment placed in the way of their execution. The 
South claimed that every man in the land who was an of¬ 
ficer and had taken an oath to support the Constitution and 
who refused to execute the fugitive slave law, was a per¬ 
jurer. The North did not deny the existence of the law (for 
it was on the statute book) nor did it deny the existence of 
the three constitutional provisions hereinbefore narrated; 
but they proceeded in every way possible to nullify them, so 
that they practically could not be enforced. 

The great men of the North admitted that the law on 
the subject of slavery was as we have narrated it, among them 
Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Benton, Seward and Lincoln. 
Indeed, they all admitted it was the law and further that the 
abolitionists were not numerous enough to get the Constitu¬ 
tion and the law changed. 

But a suit was brought by a negro slave named Dred 
Scott to test the legality of slavery. He brought it for him¬ 
self, his wife and two children and the case, on an agreed 
statement of facts, was finally gotten to the Supreme Court 


of the United States, for its decision. Prior to this time the 
confidence in the impartiality and ability of this Court was 
unlimited, and the case was argued and submitted by as 
great lawyers as existed in the land. The court then con¬ 
sisted of nine judges: R. B. Taney, of Maryland, John Mc¬ 
Lean. of Ohio, J. M. Wayne, of Georgia, John Catron, of 
Tennessee, P. V. Daniel, of Virginia, Samuel Nelson, of New 
York, Robt. C. Grier, of Pennsylvania, Benjamin R. Curtis, 
of Massachusetts, John A. Campbell, of Alabama. 

There were two of the judges out of the nine who dis¬ 
sented from the court and one rendered a special opinion. 

The Court, in the majority opinion rendered by the 
Chief Justice, Taney, sustained every contention of the 
South as to the negro and his constitutional rights. 

It was thought that this was to be the final settlement 
of the matter, but the abolitionists claimed at once that the 
Court was a factional one and for that reason had decided 
against the negro and the emancipationists, all out of preju¬ 
dice against the negro. All the judges wrote separate 
opinions, so important did they think the decision was. The 
dissenting opinions were read by Benj. R. Curtis, of Mass., 
and Judge John McLean, of Ohio. Both of these dissenting 
opinions lay great stress on certain questions of technical 
pleading and neither of them try to controvert the fact that 
the Constitution and laws of the United States did not recog¬ 
nize any rights in the negro under the law, save that ac¬ 
corded to slaves as the property of their owners. As soon 
as this decision was made, there was a great hue and cry 
against it, and throughout the North every evidence was 
given that the decision would be nullified, especially in the 
execution of the law and the Constitution as to fugitive 
slaves. 

What the political affiliations of these judges were, it 
would now be hard to ascertain, but it is known that before 
he went on the Bench Chief Justice Taney was an abolition¬ 
ist. It was then a time honored custom for judges of the 
Federal courts to take no active part in politics. These 


16 - 


opinions, in this case, taken together, give as full and ac¬ 
curate account of the history of the negro slavery as can be 
found anywhere in the same space. But to me, the concur¬ 
ring opinion of Mr. Justice Robert C. Grier, of Pennsylvania, 
is the clearest and most convincing of them all. But the 
abolitionists determined not to obey any law which recog¬ 
nized slavery and the rights of the slave owner as clearly 
pointed out by the Constitution, the statute law and the de¬ 
cisions of the courts; but nullified them in every way they 
could, by state statutes and by refusing to comply with their 
oiths to support the Constitution and laws in this regard. 
They seized on Mr. Seward’s cry that there was a higher law 
which commanded them, and undertook to live up to it, not¬ 
withstanding their oaths to obey and enforce the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States and the laws thereof. 

* 

This contention that slavery was endorsed by the Consti¬ 
tution, the law of Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme 
Court, was admitted to be true by every intelligent man of 
the land. “But,” said the abolitionist, including Lincoln, 
Seward, Chase, and every other member of the cabinet, and 
all the abolitionists, “slavery is morally wrong and we do 
not intend to carry out any of the laws, Constitution, or de¬ 
cision of the court.” Seward was the author of the expres¬ 
sion that it was wrong because in violation of the higher law, 
and therefore said they, “we will nullify it, repudiadte it an 
absolve ourselves from complying with our oaths to comply 
with the Constitution and the laws in that respect.” 

No one has ever helped Mr. Seward out by telling us 
who was the author of the higher law, but has taken it for 
granted that he meant the law of God. 

The law of our Creator is found in the Old and New 
Testaments of the Holy Scriptures, and if slavery is con¬ 
demned or commended by God, it should be found therein. 
This was the argument of all the people of the South, and 
let us see what they further contended for. 

The South contended that the Bible nowhere and at no 
time condemned slavery. It defied the abolitionists to 


- 17 - 


find a passage in the Bible which held slavery to be a sin, 
and there is no record of where any one ever pointed out 
such a holding therein. On the contrary, the very best of 
men in the Bible had and owned slaves. It was contended on 
the part of the South that Moses, the greatest law writer 
that ever lived, writing as God directed him, provided for 
the Israelites owning slaves. He drew a distinction between 
the Jew who was enslaved and the heathen that was placed 
in bondage. The Jew was to be a slave until the year of 
jubilee and then should go free. But the heathen should be 
the property of the master forever. They owned these 
slaves bv Divine right. But to go back before this; Abra¬ 
ham, who had God’s love and commendation, had a large num¬ 
ber of slaves; some were born in his house and others were 
bought with his money. And so did Isaac and Jacob, and 
one of the blessings that came to them according to the 
Scriptures was the ownership of slaves. And then, when 
Joseph became ruler over Egypt for Pharaoh, he bought all 
the Egyptians for Pharaoh and he always after owned them. 
Abraham owned 318 of those born in his house and the Lord 
signally blessed him. Never once does the Divine word con¬ 
demn any of the patriarchs for owning slaves. So far from 
condemning Abraham for owning slaves, he was called the 
father of the faithful and the Divine covenant was made 
with him for the salvation of the world. The seal was not 
only to be put on those born in his house, but on those bought 
with his money. And those who down to the time of Christ 
was spoken of as being in the land of the blessed, Abraham was 
always among the number. These slaves were to be bonds¬ 
men and bondswomen and were to be an inheritance to them 
forever; and Moses, when he wrote the Ten Commandments 
on stone by the finger of God himself, expressly recognized 
slavery and enjoined certain duties on masters towards their 
slaves. 

In Leviticus xxv 44: 45-46, God our Father spake 
through Moses thus: “Both thy bond men and thy bond 
maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are 


- 18 - 


round about thee; of them shall you buy bond men and bond 
maids.” “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that 
do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy and of their 
families that are with you, which they begat in your land; 
and they shall be your possession.” “And ye shall take 
them an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit 
them for a possesion; they shall be your bond men forever, 
but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not 
rule over one another with rigor.” The distinction is made 
by Moses between the Jews who were enslaved and those 
not Hebrews. 

The former were enslaved for a time, but when the 
year of jubilee came the slave Jew went free, and was en¬ 
titled to all his land which he had lost, but slaves of other 
notionalities were to be slaves forever and were inherited by 
children from their father, just like any other property. 
Again, the Children of Israel reduced to servitude all cap¬ 
tives and made them perpetual slaves. When the Children 
of Israel captured the Midianites, under the leadership of 
Moses, under the Lord’s command, there were divided 3,200 
young women, one half of which became the property of the 
captors and the other half belonged to the rest of the Chil¬ 
dren of Israel and of this latter half thirty-two was the 
Lord’s tribute and they were turned over to Eleazer, the 
priest, for the special service of the Lord. We find this in 
the XXXI chapter of Numbers. 

Again, in the XX chapter of Deuteronomy, the Jews are 
ordered to make peace with a nation if they can, and if they 
do “all the people that are found therein shall be tributary 
unto thee and they shall serve thee.” If they will not make 
peace and the Children of Isreal have to attack them, they 
were ordered to kill the men, but the women and children 
shall become an inheritance to them. 

Thus it was that the Children of Isreal were not only 
* permitted to have and own slaves, but they were the subject 
of inheritance, like any other property. All of the references 
to slavery in the Bible down to the time of Solomon and sub- 


- 19 - 


sequent kings, slavery was affirmatively authorized and for 
all the time down to the time of our Savior, it was recog¬ 
nized and was a part of the history of the human race with¬ 
out one word being said or hinted that it was sinful or 
under the condemnation of God. 

Job is held up as being one of the best of men and it is 
known that he was the owner of slaves and, in all the afflic¬ 
tions that God sent on him He never condemed him for own¬ 
ing slaves. 

Throughout all the time from the days of Moses until 
the time of our Savior prophets had arisen whose business it 
was to teach the people righteousness and holiness and to 
unsparingly condemn without measure every piece of wicked¬ 
ness that the people were guilty of and yet, though slavery 
existed all the time, yet never a word did any of them say as 
to slavery’s being sinful and that it should be abolished. 
When David sinned in his conduct toward Uriah, he was 
accosted by the prophet Nathan and shown his great sin, 
then he cried unto the Lord for forgiveness in those memor¬ 
able words, ‘ ‘Have mercy upon me 0 God, according to thy 
loving kindness, according unto the multitude of thy tender 
mercies, blot out my transgression.” Now, all of his life 
David was the owner of slaves and vet the Bible does not tell 
us of God’s sending the prophet Nathan to him to make 
known the sin of slavery, so that he might repent and cry 
out for forgiveness. The man created after God’s own heart 
sometimes sinned and God made it known to him, and his 
condemnation of it, but he never made known to him the sin 
of owning slaves. In all the Psalms that he composed and 
the prayers that he made, none of them break forth into 
wails because of his sinfulness in owning slaves. 

Soloman, we have been taught, was the wisest man who 
ever lived, and he owned slaves, and it is marvelous that, 
in all of his wisdom, he never learned the wisdom of 

abolitionism. 

The great prophets, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel and Daniel taught the eternal principles of right and 


20 - 


wrong to the Jewish people and, of all that they taught, the 
Bible does not give us one instance of their condemning 
slavery, though it existed when they lived during all the 
time they were on earth. It was their business to condemn 
every sin and they did condemn all sin and they were 
directed by God himself in doing it. Strange that the Bible 
is utterly silent as to such condemnation. 

Again, there were twelve books of the minor pro¬ 
phets, beginning with Jonah and ending with Malachi, 
whose writings cover a period of about four hundred years, 
whose business it was to tell them of sin and wrong doing 
and to urge them to a course of conduct which would be 
pleasing to God and yet, in all this four hundred years, not 
one word was said condemning slavery, notwithstanding it 
existed during the whole time and among the people with 
whom they lived- 

We unhesitatingly say that the Old Testament endorses 
slavery as being according to the teachings and word of God, 
and if those Scriptures disclose the standard of right and 
wrong, slavery was right. 

Then, there is a period of about four hundred years be¬ 
tween tlm time of Malachi and the coming of our Savior and 
we know from profane history that slavery existed during 
that time and was in existence at the time of our Savior. 

So we pass now from the Old to the New Testament 
and consider what the South taught with reference to slav¬ 
ery in the light of its word. Let us remember that we are 
dealing with the history of half a century ago and what the 
people of the South believed and taught. We, the Southern 
people, have a right to have the world, and especially our 
descendants, know what the South believed as to slavery. 
We have said they believed that the Old Testament taught 
that slavery of the negro was right and that the only rule on 
that subject is the Word of God. If the Old Testament law 
taught that slavery was right, then, according to our Savior, 
there is no change in the New Testament. Our Savior him¬ 
self says, in Matthew 5:17. “Think not that I am come to 


- 21 - 


destroy the law and the prophets. I am not come to destroy, 
but to fulfill;” and, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass 
than for one tittle of the law to fail.” So far as the law of 
God is concerned, it is always right. The laws of man can 
be changed by the same power that made them, but God 
himself is unchangeable and a thing once declared by God to 
be rightus always right. 

We have then the teachings and sayings of the great 
Savior of men given in God’s word (not man’s) by four of 
the evangelists and it is understood always by the intelligent 
masses that the Holy Scriptures are the words of God him¬ 
self. For authority as to right and wrong, the Scriptures of 
the Old and New Testaments are held to be infallible and 
there is no appeal from them to a higher court nor is there a 
higher law. Not only were these four men who wrote the 
four Gospels speaking and telling what they saw and heard, 
but they were guided by the hand of God and wrote what 
He endorsed. They wrote, one after another, and en¬ 
deavored to give what the preceding one had omitted, so 
that we have practically all that Jesus taught. Now, at 
this time slavery existed in that land and our Savior mingled 
constantly with the people, the rich and the poor, bond and 
free, all nationalities living there, and he, therefore knew of 
all their shortcomings and their wickedness. He taught al¬ 
ways as one having authority and spared not in his denun¬ 
ciation of sin. Another thing will be remembered, that in 
his preaching he took up the commandments and wherever 
wrong interpretations of them existed in the minds of the 
people, he unhesitatingly laid bare their inconsistencies and 
denounced them in unmeasured terms, so that all might 
understand. These sermons and teachings are given to us by 
these four evangelists as directed and inspired by God him¬ 
self, in all their detail, giving us clearly and distinctly, what 
the law was on every question arising at that time, and yet, 
not one of the four, at any time or on any occasion, gives us 
one syllable of what our Savior said which condemned 
slavery. 


— 22 — 


Again, our Savior used parables to illustrate the subject 
with which he was dealing and brought in them some spirit¬ 
ual truth, yet, never in a single parable did he bring out any¬ 
thing condemnatory of slavery. Again, he used illustrations 
from the surrounding enviroments to teach great spiritual 
truths, and yet, he never once used any of the circumstances 
surrounding slavery to teach that it was wrong. 

When he sought to teach his hearers what man is to be¬ 
lieve concerning God and what duty God requires of man, he 
never hinted at, or used a solitary expression condemning 
slavery. But, if slavery was a sin, then not only would 
Christ have condemned it and warned the people against it 
as he did other sins, but these four evangelists, whose busi¬ 
ness it was to tell what the Savior believed and taught, 
would themselves have caught something which fell from 
our Savior's lips which condemned it and would, themselves, 
have imbibed the idea from him, and then the thought 
would have found some expression from them somewhere in 
their writings. 

It seemed to the Southern man unthinkable that the 
Savior and his four biographers should have lived when 
slavery existed, and should have moved among slaves all of 
their lives and yet, not one word be said which condemned 
slavery as sinful if He taught that it was wrong. 

But what of the other writers of the New Testament and 
what did they say or teach as to the right or wrong of slav¬ 
ery. It will be remembered, that Luke, -the writer of the 
Acts of the Apostles, and the two great characters of whom 
he wrote, Peter and Paul, lived at the same time of our 
Savior and for many years thereafter. Luke, in this book, 
undertakes to give an account of the founding of the 
Christian Church immediately after our Savior arose from 
the dead. Luke not only had written the life of our Savior 
and set forth what he taught, but he had lived with and ac¬ 
companied the apostles Peter and Paul in some of their 
preaching tours. The inspiration of the Book of the Acts of 
the Apostles, as far as I know, has never been questioned. 


- 23 - 


At any rate, wa have the same evidence of its inspiration as 
of any of the rest of the Bible. Not only had Luke been 
largely an eye-witness to what he wrote, but his hand was 
held by the Almighty himself. In this book is Paul’s creed 
and Peter’s creed and neither of them says anything con¬ 
demning slavery. These two apostles not only give what 
Luke and Paul and God taught, but both of them wrote 
books which are parts of the New Testament. Peter wrote 
two epistles which undertake to state the teachings of the 
Lord Jesus Christ and never does he have anything to say 
condemnatory of slavery. On the contrary, he admonishes 
servants (slaves) to “be subject to their masters with all 
fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also, to the fro- 
ward.” And so Paul, in his numerous epistles to men and 
to the churches, admonishes the slave to be true to his 
master. 

Permit me then to tell you further of the other writers 
of tne New Testament who lived amongst a slave owning 
•people and who wrote briefly to tell the world the way of 
life and yet never warned them of the so-called great sin of 
slavery, and especially of John, the last but not the least of 
the sacred writers. It is said that he was the disciple that 
Jesus loved, and certain it is that when there was any great 
manifestation of the Savior’s power and glory, John was 
there to behold it. Some of the apostles were away from 
him sometimes, but John was always kept with him. He 
saw and knew as much of Christ as any other apostle and 
while he did not write as much as some others, he wrote 
enough for us to say of him, that he did not hesitate to 
record what the Savior taught and never once did he inti¬ 
mate that slavery was a sin and that men ought not to in¬ 
dulge in it. 

It will be remembered, that one of the great contentions 
of the abolitionist was, that he would not help to execute the 
fugitive slave law, and that he would rather commit perjury 
than to assist the slave owner to take his slave and carry 
him back to his home. The biographers of many of the 


- 24 — 


abolitionists who wrote since the war boast of the manner 
in which those people helped the slaves to leave the United 
States and take refuge in Canada where the fugitive slave 
law could not reach them. They said, and acted on the say¬ 
ing that they would rather violate their oaths than to be 
guilty of helping the owner of a slave to recover him and 
take him back to his owner’s home. 

But lastly we recall that Philemon, a slave owner was 
honored by the apostle Paul in his having written to him an 
epistle for the purpose of telling him of his, Paul’s, return¬ 
ing to him his runaway slave Onesimus and counseling him 
not to treat him unkindly although he had run away as he, 
Paul, had admonished him to return to his master, ‘’that he 
should receive him forever.” I suppose, however, that the 
complete answer to this incident is that it is a mistranslation 
from the original and what Paul really did was to give 
Onesimus a five dollar bill and tell him to light out for Can¬ 
ada. 

The Southern people have been called rebels, but they 
never rebelled against the Constitution and the law and the 
decision of the Supreme Court. 

I have thus shown, for the benefit of our children, what 
were the reasons which compelled the South to believe that 
slavery was right, measured both by the law of man and by 
the law of God and I submit that I have made out my case. 

But let us for a time look at the matter of dividing the 
government into two nations instead of one. When Mr. 
Lincoln wrote to Mr. Seward the day after his inauguration 
making the suggestion that the seceding states be allowed 
to go peaceably, he uttered a sentiment which was not only 
wise and humane, but which was entirely in harmony with 
the teachings of our government, beginning even before its 
establishment and continuing during all the years that it had 
an existence. The right of local self government was the 
basis of the government of the United States. It is true, 
the South contended that a state had a right to secede, one 
by one, but what difference in principle did it make that 


-25 


when exercised in 1860, it was for the purpose of forming 
our Confederate government. 

Consider now, for a moment, the causes which led to the 
war of 1776 in comparison with the complaints of the 
Southern States of 1860 and you will be bound to admit that 
the causes of the separation in 1860 were infinitely greater 
than those of 1776. Consider the wrong of the taxing of tea 
and any and all other complaints against the British govern¬ 
ment and give it as wide a sweep as possible and it is a pig¬ 
my compared with the wrong leading to the war of 1860. 
If we consider the number of people dissatisfied with the 
United States Government in 1860 with those who were dis¬ 
satisfied with the British Government in 1776, they stand 
more than six to one. If we consider the amount of proper¬ 
ty that was involved, there was a thousand fold more in 
1860 than in 1776. If the Americans in 1776 had a right to 
prefer and have a separate government what change in 
eternal principles intervened during the time that elapsed 
between 1776 and 1860 which kept the Southern people from 
having a government organized to suit the consent of the 
governed? The negro property which was involved in the 
controversy was worth more than a thousand millions of 
dollars. And that property was not stolen property as the 
abolitionists sought to make the world believe, but it was 
paid for by the slave owners in hard cash, much of which 
lined the pockets of the abolitionists and their fore¬ 
fathers. 

The assisting the slaves to escape into Canada, whatever 
the motive which caused it, deprived the slave owner of his 
property in defiance of the Constitution of the United States 
which guaranteed to him protection. With this condition 
of affairs staring the South in the face why should it not 
seek a government which would protect it in its property 
rights? 

There existed in 1860 three great governments on the 
North American Continent which were recognized all over 
the world. One of these was Mexico, the second was the 


- 26 — 


Dominion of Canada, and the third was the United States. 
No man has offered any logical reason why there could not 
have been four instead of three. These three governments 
are separated from each other by an imaginary line, but it 
is as definite and fixed as can be desired. Why could there 
not have been a line fixed between the North and South 
which would have been satisfactory to both? Why could not 
a treaty have been made, offensive and defensive, to protect 
each from the encroachment on their rights by other nations? 

In conclusion, for myself, I have had no regrets that I 
believed in slavery and fought to maintain it, not only on 
account of my interests involved in it, but also, because I 
believed in it as an abstract question of right. The law 
alike, of both God and man, each of which we swore to 
maintain, tells us in no uncertain words, that we were right. 
Those we loved fell in the fray and we who still remain in 
this life will never cease to honor them for it. 

“They never fail who die 

In the great cause; the block may soak their gore; 

Their heads may sodden in the sun; their limbs 

Be strung to city gates and castle walls— 

But their spirit walks abroad.’' 

When we think of our brothers who thus fell our hearts 
melt within us and our voices are attuned to the melodies of 
the poet priest when he sang: 

“Thou art sleeping, brother, sleeping, 

In thy lonely battle grave; 

Shadows o’er the past are creeping, 

Death, the reaper, still is reaping, 

Years have swept, and years are sweeping 
Many a memory from my keeping. 

But I’m waiting still and weeping 
For my beautiful and brave.’’ 

But, my friends, might never made right. 

It was so decreed. 

We have fought a good fight. 


- 27 - 


We have kept the faith. 

The issue is settled, 

The die is cast. 

“Furl that Banner, for’tis weary; 
’Round its staff ? tis drooping dreary; 

Furl it, fold it, it is best; 

For there’s not a man to wave it, 

And there’s not a sword to save it, 

And there’s not one left to lave it 
In the blood which heroes gave it; 

And its foes now scorn and brave it; 

Furl it, hide it—let it rest! 

Take that Banner down! ’tis tattered; 
Broken is its staff and shattered; 

And the valiant hosts are scattered; 

Over whom it floated high. 

Oh! ’tis hard for us to fold it; 

Hard to think there’s none to hold it; 
Hard that those who once unrolled it 
Now must furl it with a sigh. 

Furl that Banner! furl it sadly! 

Once ten thousands hailed it gladly. 

And ten thousands wildly, madly, 

Swore it should forever wave. 
Swore that foeman's sword should never 
Hearts like theirs entwined dissever, 

Till that flag should float forever 

O’er their freedom or their grave. 

Furl it! for the hands that grasped it, 
And the hearts that fondly clasped it, 
Cold and dead are lying low; 

And that Banner—it is trailing! 
While’around it sounds the wailing 
Of its people in their woe. 

- 28 - 


r 


For, though conquered, they adore it! 
Love the cold, dead hand that bore it! 
Weep for those who fell before it! 

Pardon those who trailed and tore it! 

But, oh! wildly they deplore it, 

Now who furl and fold it so. 

Furl that Banner! True, ’tis gory, 

Yet ’tis wreathed around with glory, 

And twill live in song and story, 

Though its folds are in the dust; 
For its fame on brightest pages, 

Penned by poets and by sages, 

Shall go sounding down the ages— 

Furl its folds though now we must. 

Furl that Banner, softly, slowly! 

Treat it gently—it is holy— 

For it droops above the dead. 
Touch it not—unfold it never, 

Let it droop there, furled forever, 

For its people’s hopes are dead! 


— 29 — 







1-*:• *.f:. ‘ •- v - 


* ■- v/V • 


-,.k; v. 




*» < ‘-rsf V'*-. •, 




.. ME 










■ ; Y-C 


Yg:':: '•. «¥, o' **’•> 

CV-rf "t.■•*•.*• ’ • - 




J? • . • '.ij SV «4->V< 


■: -* <* v . , 


«***;"? • 










| * '4 $ 

ssfeaiP ** tWH 










-7 












9-S8H 








■jg&w 
























■ 


, • x >■ .• 

■ 

V-» 


{#&> V-l-; i&gg&flKI 

■ •*' /•’. ,v‘" -v 




•T~ -• ■ .: >.•••. '-v. ■ , 








ft'vr 


LV'Stf 


|%! 


. tfrk. 


- ?■• 


. W 

v ■» .' ■ 




bass 




or 







;4«jg 

!•. • <■ . vr*. “ "'x ' ’ 7; a 

• ."'-•i 

IyMy 








































